Posted on 09/13/2005 9:20:39 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
I was wrong about Roberts
Posted: September 13, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
John Roberts still has most conservatives buffaloed.
They just can't believe George W. Bush would betray them so boldly.
But he has.
Even I, the ultimate skeptic, am just beginning to fathom the extent of the shell game that has been played on conservatives – most of whom are actively working on behalf of the confirmation of a new chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who will make Ruth Bader Ginsberg look like a moderate.
That's right.
Up until now, I've been comparing Roberts to Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. I've got news for you. He's worse.
That, according to his close friend Edward Lazarus. Here's what he has to say about the next chief justice:
"Roberts is not burdened by a Bork-like record of speaking out in his own voice ... Roberts presents a sharp contrast to [Robert] Bork in judicial philosophy. Roberts is already on record strongly disclaiming an allegiance to any particular theory of constitutional interpretation, such as original intent jurisprudence. Roberts says that he picks and chooses what interpretive tools to use (such as textual analysis, historical analysis, or reliance on precedent) depending on which tools seem best to fit a particular case ..."
But it gets worse. Lazarus says Roberts will be very influential because of this style.
"Why could Roberts be influential?" he asks rhetorically. "Because of the very collegiality that is cited as a reason to confirm him. Justice Thomas, for instance, is isolated on the court by his extreme and often unusual views; like Bork, he too is susceptible to caricature due to a strong emphasis on Framers' intent. So while Thomas is a reliable conservative vote, he is not an effective wooer of moderates. But Roberts could both be a reliable conservative vote, and also convince moderates such as Justice Kennedy to join his side. Similarly, while Thomas is too extreme to ever be a chief justice candidate, Roberts, in contrast, could easily become one."
This statement, by the way, made long before Bush nominated Roberts to the job of chief justice following the death of William Rehnquist.
Again, it gets worse – much worse.
"Putting politics aside, the current court member Roberts most resembles is Stephen Breyer. Roberts is far more intellectual than Rehnquist, far more politic than Scalia, and – as noted above – far less extreme than Thomas."
Stephen Breyer. That's who Roberts most resembles, according to his friend.
Roberts is a Washington establishment operative who has been fooling conservatives for much of his life.
In 1981, he worked hand in glove with his good friend Kenneth Starr, another shill for the establishment, to fool President Reagan and the American people into thinking Sandra Day O'Connor was a "conservative," Reagan Republican. He was a plotter, a co-conspirator, a devious manipulator, a spinner.
In a Feb. 16, 1982, memo he wrote to Attorney General William French Smith advising him on how to handle conservative criticism of the O'Connor choice, which had been engineered by Starr, he wrote:
A related criticism focuses on the screening and appointment of federal judges, highlighted by the O'Connor debate. The assertion is that appointees are not ideologically committed to the president's policies, again with particular emphasis on the social agenda ... Here again I do not think we should respond with a "yes, they are"; rather we should shift the debate and briefly touch on our judicial restraint themes (for which this audience should give us some credit).
It really should not matter what the personal ideology of our appointees may be, so long as they recognize that their ideology should have no role in the decisional process – i.e., so long as they believe in judicial restraint. This theme should be glossed somewhat, because of the platform, but we can make the point that much criticism of our appointees has been misdirected.
This is what conservatives got for all their hard work on behalf of George W. Bush – a betrayal. Conservatives were told they had nowhere else to go in the presidential election if they cared about the U.S. Supreme Court.
And what did they get? Not Souter. Not Kennedy. But Breyer.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND and a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. He is also the founder of WND Books, publishes the premium, online, intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, and is the author of the highly acclaimed book "Taking America Back." In addition to his daily column in WND, he writes a nationally syndicated weekly column available to U.S. newspapers through Creators Syndicate.
As usual, Farah is nuts.
Roberts is a friend of Ken "Red" Starr?
We're screwed.
***************
He's the ultimate something, but the word I'm thinking of is a bit different.
Yes. To me Farah is a reverse barometer.
Certified by the AMWI= American Morons and Whackos Institute.
Thanks
When Edward Lazarus compares Roberts to Breyer, it sounds to me like he is talking about personality and style, not philosophy and substance.
It sounds like Farah does not perceive the distinction and that Farah ignores other statements.
That's right, folks. He's worse than we ever expected. Mr. Roberts was born a 1970 AMC Ambassador Station Wagon, and was eventually transmogrofied by Karl Rove and the Bilderbergers into the consummate USSC mole.
Once again, Mr. Farah, please STFU.
Coulter?
That crazy leftist?
Wasn't she the poster girl for Free Republic for years until she spoke against drinking the artificially sweetened fruit flavored drink?
Well said
I call BS, and maybe I am letting the cat out of the bag, but Coulter and now Farrah are running interference for Roberts... thats how I see it.
"Does anyone here like or even pay attention to Farah?"
I used to read him daily, but he's been wrong too many times and he's the biggest peesimist and defeatist there is on the so called right.
I guess there just weren't any "real" conservatives to choose from.
Lucky Bastard!
Rob
ping? thoughts, coldwarnavyvet?
ping
I think Ann Coulter is a pretty savy laddy with a lot of sense.
I for one, am extremely uneasy with Roberts and his dark horse personality. I never heard of this guy Farah personally, but Roberts does worry me, and George Bush II doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to selecting people. He seems to make judgements based on personality and friendship rather than character or ideology, e.g. Tom Kean and Alberto Gonzales.
Conservatives like me put in George Bush II in office - twice. "Moderates" did everything they could to defeat him. He owes us and what he owes us more than anything else are conservatives on the Supreme Court. Its his RESPONSIBILITY to fight for candidates who practise judicial restraint and adhere to original intent. Those are two of the very basic elements which define conservativism vis-a-vis liberalism in modern political thought. And they are reflective of the opinions of most Americans on this subject.
"It really should not matter what the personal ideology of our appointees may be, so long as they recognize that their ideology should have no role in the decisional process – i.e., so long as they believe in judicial restraint."
Judicial restraint is, in itself, an ideology.
Our accelerating departure from that ideology is destroying our Republic as surely as the actions of the Senators and Demogogues of the 1st century B.C. destroyed the Roman Republic.
Good points.
All I can say is wait and see.
Time will tell whether this analysis is true or not. I don't want to support or outright reject what Farah says.
If he's wrong great
If he's right, the only people who are going to look like fools are those calling him foolish now.
Who Knows What Evil Lurks in the Hearts of Men?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.